Windows 7: Vista minus the nagging

garysgold said:

Hello JG,
If it was Vista without the nagging I wouldn't be using it, as Vista doesn't nag me that much. Libraries and the new taskbar are two things that I really like. Also the Aero Snap feature saves me time and trouble. Also boots 3X faster for me, although that's not a big deal to me as I'm seldom in that much of a hurry. Can't even get a cup of coffee before it's ready to go. This doesn't mean that it couldn't be Vista SP2. Hopefully there is more to come though. Just my opinion.

Gary

I read the article, not just the title - I was commenting on his stand on UAC and why it is neither an evil nor a deterrent, but needs it be used - hell, *nix has been doing that for *years*, and in the corporate world, running with less than admin credentials is *standard*.

Barman58 said:

I think that the title used for the article is not the best, but the views of a professional like Derek Melber is refreshing

He has obviously used both Operating Systems and thought about the use of UAC in real world situations, Unlike most of the people writing articles .

I have never felt UAC to be nagging me, but informing me when I do something potentially dangerous, As stated in the article that is what you should expect as an Admin.

The people who slate vista's UAC for the nagging are, I feel, often the same people were most vocal about the lack of security in windows. They have to realise that security has a price to pay in terms of convenience.

In Windows 7 Microsoft have given the control of the UAC to the Admin so as to let them make an informed choice.

Vista was revolutionary in lots of ways, Windows 7 is less so but, in my opinion, that is what is needed.

That is what I was saying about him agreeing with me.

davehc said:

I make no pretence. I don't doubt for one moment that the UAC offers another obstacle in the path of malware attack. I run, as has been , automatically, the case in legacy OS's, as the global Administrator. With back up images, and as a private user, I see no great risk in this. With the help of good third party malware protection, I feel as secure as needs be. I have never, over the years of personal computer use, been subjected to any attack, threatening or in what the hackers would call "fun", that could not easliy be dealt with.
I think initially, the problem, and the quick solution (disabling or just double clicking) was so widely publicised that now, it has become a reflex action for most users. Any parents reading these pages must agree. My eight year old granddaughter quickly circumvents the prompt. ( On a computer setup for her use!) With antivirus, or malware control, it can be unobtrusive enough that the user is not even aware that destructive action is being forestalled.
Another problem was one of authoritative manner in which the UAC ws imposed. It is distressing for a new user, maybe not too knowledgeable to pay a deal of money for the right of sole use, only to find, after installation, that he does not even have full rights to the damned computer. As, I believe, in Linus releases (I havn't looked at those for a while) it would have been polite and businesslike of Microsoft to have given full global Adminstartative rights to the user, with a very large print warning, toeard the end of the install, that it would be in the best security interests of the user to enable both a username as a standard user, and the UAC, as an option.
There is, on observation at my lower level of knowledge, a contardiction of terms glossed over in the blog
"!Most administrators have a single user account, which has membership in the Domain Admins or worse, Enterprise Admins, group. When browsing the Internet, performing routine tasks, checking e-mail, etc., if the user has administrative privileges, so does the malware, virus, or other malicious code that is running without the administrator’s knowledge.
Windows Vista eliminates risk by forcing all users — administrators and end-users alike — to run as a “standard user.”"

I have two Network Adminstrators in my family. Both of their employers are up to date and employ Vista. I have not queried it with them, but I would imagine that, at least for a great deal of the time, they find it neccessary to operate as Global Admins with full priviliges. They would not, therefore , see the comparative advantage of Vista over, say, XP. - But maybe Ive got that wrong?

No, no matter the amount of large print you would use, end users are too worried about setting things up and going from 0 to 60 in a matter of seconds - They hear from their friends that they can get online and talk to other people, send emails, look at videos, etc. but this word of mouth that passes from person to person never *once* mentions any of the dangers - which is why so many new computer users find themselves the victims of phishing attacks, or their systems compromised with trojans, viruses, and other malware. Even in stores, there is little mention of protection until the user initiates the conversation topic, and then it is shrugged off as "Oh, it does it for you".

Barman58 said:

Hi dave

The Administrator, at least as I was taught when I started out, on business networks always used to run with two accounts, one full admin plus global admin rights, and a standard user which was their default login.

If they needed to perform an operation that needed elevated rights then they would temporarily log into their Admin account by the use on the "Runas" (on windows systems), or the "SU" or "SUDO" commands, (on Unix or Linux systems)

the only recent Linux experience I have is with ubuntu which automatically follows this method on installation, where commands requiring Root privilege being accessed by the use of the sudo command. If you wish to circumvent this in Linux it is a lot more difficult than it is in vista

What UAC does for an admin used to this working practice is partly automate this process.

Unfortunately the model for chosen for windows when the NT series was introduced was to make the first user automatically an admin - and has led to the current practice (pre-vista) to run as this user at all times. This has led in turn to software developers assuming that the user will have full admin rights and writing the software accordingly.

With the vast increase in malware around toward the end of the XP era and the calls for vista to be "more Secure" Microsoft implemented UAC. Due in a lot of cases 3rd party software still expecting the user to be at full admin level the amount of "false" UAC prompts has been way too high and has led to the click through or disable attitude that prevails today.

I have problem with the experienced user like yourself who, Knowing the potential risks chooses to run as full admin all the time on your own machine. The problem all the bloggers instructing the new users who don't know the dangers to do so.

It would be interesting to canvas the opinions of your "family admins" to see the way that they work, I am old school in my training but a lot of admins these days do run as full admin all the time.

anyway I've rambled on enough and never forget though I may express my opinions on a few subjects on the Forums here they are only my opinions and I may be wrong

Exactly - this is what I say many places I go - the model that M$ chose when they first unleashed XP on the world was the mistake - by creating the default user as an administrator, everything goes south.

davehc said:

My previous post "They would not, therefore , see the comparative advantage of Vista over, say, XP."
I'm not sure, but I think you are, in part, agreeing with my thoughts on Network Admin use?

In essence, yes he is - as am I.

Barman58 said:

I think that the title used for the article is not the best.

Agreed. This is what I was reacting to. Vista has a bad rep, not deserved in my opinion, but it has it non the less. The vast majority of people are not going to read most of the article if any at all. Titles like that can accomplish nothing but putting people off Seven before they even try it. I generally only get a new OS when I buy a new comp., I was thinking XP when I bought this one. Thankfully someone who is much more knowledgeable than I talked me into trying Vista. Since most people get a new OS only when they purchase a new computer, it could make some people consider a Mac since XP is no longer an option and the headlines say Seven isn't much better than Vista. Seven is an improved Vista in more ways than just the nagging. If it continues to improve, it will be the first time I buy an OS just for the OS.

Gary